>
This weekend, Something Awful gives its readers a little tour of The Spearhead Forum and some of its more colorful fauna. I’ve borrowed the screenshot above from them. Hagslave entrainment! Yeasty oblivion!
The Spearhead Forum is if anything a little weirder than The Spearhead itself. It is also the main stomping ground of a fellow named Zebert, who has many, well, innovative ideas about how to solve all the problems of the world (e.g. forbidding education for women, prohibiting gatherings of more than four women at a time, removing the voiceboxes from baby girls at birth).
The Something Awful folks have gathered up quite a few of his most intriguing posts, and many others of equal value. Head over there now and enjoy.
![Program note: I will be on National Public Radio's All Things Considered today [UPDATE: Transcript up, audio soon]](http://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/kids-listening-to-radio.jpg?resize=50%2C50)
>I love American Psycho. Well, the movie. Never read the book.
>Andrea Dworkin lived during a time when white men could rape their coworkers, sell their wives' belongings, harass their workers, and do just about anything they want—legally. Sexual harassment was just something men laughed about, it wasn't something women could do anything about because it was part of life. Wife beating was called, "What do you tell a woman with two black eyes? Nothing you haven't told her twice already." Har har har. That's still a popular tee shirt with some people. Marital rape didn't exist. And so on. When my mother got a job and bought the family home, she had to get my father's permission to get her own credit and her own credit cards. It used to be legal for abusive men to ruin womens' credit, then leave them holding the bill. Child support wasn't required, and men could just skip off and leave their wives and kids destitute. And they did. And MRAs are angry that Dworkin wrote about this, and many other things, and that they can't get away with the shit that their daddies could.
>The book is an orgy of violence that is way more disgusting then the movie. I mean WAY more. The only parts of the book that are any good are the parts that talk about pop culture.
>i just wonder, sometimes, at the total lack of knowledge some MRAs have – especially of history.the Suffragette movement had some basic goals.1. get the vote2. get BC and abortion legalized – up to that point [and several decades later] birth control was ILLEGAL, and abortion wasn't illegal so much as it was Alegal – no one cared.3. change laws that prevented women from divorce in almost any case; change laws to read "child goes to best care-taker" rather than "automatically go to the father"it wasn't until the 30's that women were starting – STARTING! – to not ALWAYS automatically lose custody if they COULD get a divorce.because, for the past several thousand years, it was "children are OWNED by their fathers" of course, it was also "WOMEN are OWNED by their husbands", so there's that.today, the PRESUMPTION, unless there's some other compelling reason [like abuse] *IS* joint custody.many men don't WANT their kids around 24/7, because the don't WANT to do all the child-caring. i don't know what percentage of men this is, but it is SOME percentage. [my own father did this – while they technically had joint custody, he wouldn't take us for more than a few weeks of the year. oh, and he paid a whopping $300/month for BOTH of us. and that amount never changed, even when he started making a fuck-ton more money]and money isn't enough – but i KNOW men, right now, who bitch about paying said amount [a couple hundred a MONTH] and REFUSE to spend more than a minimum of time with their kids. is this all men? no, of course not! but MRAs ignore these men, act like ALL men ONLY want their kids, period, all the time – and i really, really doubt it's the case.raising kids is HARD.my favorite guy [other than my boyfriend] is a friend of mine who's a stay-at-home-dad. he's AWESOME with the kids, and his wife works her ass off to support them all, because they both wanted a stay-at-home-parent, she made more than he did [also, he's better with them] they rock – they're great friends, have great kids, and are all around awesome people.
>@DarkSideCat – Re Dworkin's and Steinem's "very problematic views about sex and sexuality," what ginmar said.@Elizabeth – The book portrayed Bateman as some kind of antihero. The movie made him a portrait of a sociopath and humanized his victims.@denelian – It's anecdotal, but I know of one divorced woman whose ex refused to pay child support on the grounds that he didn't have custody. She called his bluff and told him since she couldn't afford to raise the kids without financial support, he'd just have to take full custody of them. He started making his damn payments after that.
>Snobographer: My sister's ex was the one who asked for the divorce—-he was going through a mid life crisis and cheating on her with a twentysomething with five kids by five different fathers—–but when she put up a fight, he quit his job out of spite and then was shocked, shocked that the trial judge asked for proof of whatever excuse he came up with. Claimed he was upset about the divorce—you know, the one he asked for. My sister worked three jobs, my ex BIL worked under the table and his sons now hate him. For that matter, I've found myself dating young men whose mothers went through some very similar shit, and they're squarely on their mom's side, with the occasional truly scary exception.